Biomedical subjects

Melissa Hill

Publications and source records attributed to Melissa Hill.

3 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2026

The costs of genomic newborn screening in England: A micro-costing analysis from the Generation Study.

PURPOSE: This study estimates the total cost per newborn of delivering genomic newborn screening (gNBS) within the Genomics England-led Generation Study. METHODS: A time-driven activity-based costing approach was used to estimate gNBS costs from recruitment to confirmatory testing. Resource use data were obtained through document review, semi-structured interviews with study staff, and direct observation across six English National Health Service Trusts. Inputs were categorized as labor, consumables, or equipment, with unit costs sourced from published pay scales, catalogs, or literature. Equipment costs were annualized at a discount rate of 3.5%. All costs were estimated in 2025 Great British Pounds (£) from the healthcare providers perspective, including overheads and data storage. A one-way deterministic sensitivity analysis was conducted, varying key cost parameters (±20%) and testing alternative delivery scenarios. RESULTS: gNBS costs £1208 per newborn, with sequencing comprising 58% of the total costs, mainly consumables. The cost was reduced by 20% to £963 when excluding research-specific recruitment and consent activities to reflect the delivery of gNBS as part of routine clinical care. CONCLUSION: This study provides an estimate of gNBS costs, highlighting sequencing as the main cost driver. Combined with evidence on outcomes and health care utilization, these findings will inform future cost-effectiveness analyses, supporting policy decisions regarding national implementation in England.

Neonatal Screening↗

PubMed2025

Costs and cost-effectiveness of returning secondary findings from genomic sequencing based on the return of additional findings in the 100,000 Genomes Project.

PURPOSE: To assess costs and cost-effectiveness of returning additional findings from genome sequencing using data from the 100,000 Genomes Project (100kGP). METHODS: A model-based cost-utility analysis combining yield, consent rates, and cost data from the 100kGP with published estimates of downstream costs and quality-adjusted life years expected to accrue over a lifetime, after the identification of a pathogenic variant. RESULTS: The cost of returning additional findings to participants in the 100kGP was £7.1m or £81 per participant, with a yield of 0.85% for consented participants. The estimated lifetime incremental cost per participant was £125 and quality-adjusted life years 0.004, giving an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of £28,830. Implementing a policy of returning additional findings is unlikely to be cost-effective (ie, 13%) at a willingness-to-pay threshold of £20,000. A short-term cost of returning findings of £43 per participant or lower (compared with the base case of £81) would result in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of less than £20,000. Alternatively, cost-effectiveness may be improved by returning additional findings to younger patient populations. CONCLUSION: Return of additional findings following genome sequencing for this group of conditions may not be a cost-effective use of health care system resources. Our cost-effectiveness outcomes rely on published estimates and should be validated through long-term follow-up data.

Humans↗

PubMed2025

Evaluating the return of additional findings from the 100,000 Genomes Project: A mixed-methods study exploring participant experiences of receiving secondary findings from genomic sequencing.

PURPOSE: The 100,000 Genomes Project participants could consent to receive additional findings (AFs) for variants associated with susceptibility to cancer and familial hypercholesterolemia. Here, we evaluate stakeholder experiences to inform clinical practice. METHODS: Mixed-methods study conducted at 18 sites across England that comprised a cross-sectional survey and interviews with participants who received a positive AF (PAF) and interviews with participants who had no AFs (NAF). RESULTS: There were 146 surveys followed by 35 interviews with PAF participants and 29 interviews with NAF participants. Surveys found that PAF results were seen as useful and would influence health management (82%). Most (90%) had shared their result with family members. Experiences differed by PAF type; cancer PAF participants were often initially shocked and anxious and found telling family members challenging compared with participants with a familial hypercholesterolemia PAF. Although most experiences of NAF results were positive, some misunderstandings were identified. Participants supported returning AFs when offering genome sequencing. CONCLUSION: Patient experiences of receiving AFs were primarily positive, and there is support for offering AFs routinely. Considerations for offering AFs in clinical practice include adapting approaches tailored to individual conditions and greater support for people with a NAF result.

Humans↗